Jeff,
[[[ I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that in order
to determine if something is a mammal, you must decide if it has hair,
is warm-blooded, and gives live birth to its young? If so, the ability
to state these kinds of definitions is the sort of thing we hope to provide
with OWL.]]]
My point was that knowing how much of something, something is, can be very
useful information. Simply describing me as tall, blond, and handsome would
the more useful if facts regarding "how" tall and "how" blonde and "how"
handsome was attached to these words .
[[[ However, your point about publications seems somewhat different. It
seems to say that people would be more interested in publications that
have higher circulation. ... I might wish to rank things in different orders
than you.]]]
My point is less about ranking and more about "qualifying" descriptive words.
I just used circulation as a convenient example, but something like the age
of the publication might be more useful information to attach to the descriptive
word. It should also be understood that the "system" would allow the individual
making the request to decide how important "high relevancy" on a key word should
be. In other words, the ability to request only articles published in newest
30% of publications would be made possible by simply adding a number qualifier
to the key word request. For example: articles, publications-3, etc.
[[[ Since this is really a mailing list for specific comments on the WebOnt
requirements document, we are not likely to get much discussion on this topic
here. I recommend that you post your idea to www-rdf-logic@w3.org.]]]
Being frank: If how you have mapped out these discussion boards is an example
of what you intend to do for web navigation--I'm not feeling very optimistic.
Gary Mosher